Duplicate Assertions on Protocol Bindings

[egekorkan]

While working on #676, I have realized that there are the following assertions and they mean the same thing:

• At 6.6.2

Form fields are optional and MAY further specify the expected request message for the given operation.

• At 6.7.3

Protocol Bindings MAY have additional information that specifies representation formats in more detail than the media type alone.
These are not exactly the same thing but the first one is a superset of the latter.

[egekorkan]

Also, the last part of the following sentence says the same thing but without an RFC assertion:

A form can be viewed as a statement of "To perform an operation type operation on form context , issue a request method request to submission target " where the optional form fields may further describe the required request.

[mlagally]

@egekorkan,
I think it is justified to have these two requirements.
The first is about form fields, the second about protocol bindings.

If you think it should be further clarified,
can you please create a PR.

[mlagally]

Also, the last part of the following sentence says the same thing but without an RFC assertion:

A form can be viewed as a statement of "To perform an operation type operation on form context , issue a request method request to submission target " where the optional form fields may further describe the required request.

This is just explanatory text, I don't think we have to make it a normative assertion.

[mlagally]

Arch call on June23rd: decide to close.

[egekorkan]

I don't know why this issue is closed but it is not done